Would it be worth recommending to FDA that to address this issue that the measurements be adjusted so that it is percentage based ? I'd have thought most packaging would show per 100 g quantities as well. Which would then mean that you have the percentage shown.

Some countries require nutrient information to be shown for both serving size and for a 100g portion. Unforunately, the U.S. does not require this and most products do sold here do not list nutrition info based on a 100g serving. Makes it real difficult to compare products and some serving sizes are so small, the numbers are not useful at all. For example, PAM cooking spray which is aerosolized vegetable oil (with some bottles containing a small amount of corn starch or other additives) has a serving size equivalent to a 0.3 second spray. This is much shorter than most people use the product (and much shorter than demonstrated on their TV commercials or by TV chef's who use the product). Problem is, most of the nutrition info is 0. It was even sold as a 0 fat product because the serving size was small enough to round down the fat content to zero even though the product IS fat.

I had a box of Gertrude Hawk Chocolates - milk chocolate cinnamon sugar cookie smidgens to be exact. The nutritional information lists 2 grams of trnas fat per serving not much until you realize that a serving is only 45 grams. Alos of note is that of the 45 gram serving size, 15g is and carbs are 26g, plus another half gram of mostly sodium. Not much else in it really. The saddest part is that these were almost inedible as they were way too sweet, kinda greasy feeling and gritty. I threw most of them away.

Just out of curiosity, why are people having so much trouble coming to terms with the fact that less than 0.5 g of trans fat is considered 0?

You have to have a cut off. Every measuring scale is only as accurate as half the increments. Zero is never zero - it's always +/- some amount

People forget that everything depicted on a food container is subject to advertising from the manufacturer. There are certain elements and statements required to appear on the packaging. But beyond the basics, it's up to the manufacturer as to how that info is presented. It should not be a shock that the food industry tries to make their foodstuffs look healthier than they really are. Certainly the serving size and/or recipe can be buggered with until it can be stated that the amount of trans per serving is closer to 0 than to 1. This is why "0g trans fat" listed in the nutritional block does not mean you are not consuming trans fat.

If you want to know if you are eating trans, you have to become familiar with the ingredients list (a packaging requirement also subject to spin doctors). If the list includes anything like "partially hydrolyzed" anything, you are likely enjoying a dose of trans.

If the list includes anything like "partially hydrolyzed" anything, you are likely enjoying a dose of trans.

Thor means "hydrogenated". If something is "hydrolyzed" like soy protein, then you're most likely consuming glutamates. Not known to be harmful to the body, but for people who avoid MSG or are allergic to MSG, that's what they should look for.

Thor means "hydrogenated". If something is "hydrolyzed" like soy protein, then you're most likely consuming glutamates

At least I was “partially” right. Thanks for the correction. I should really better organize my research, especially when it involves big words like “hydrogenated”, “hydrolyzed”, or “beer”. Perhaps I need to start my own forum . . . . .

This is somewhat off topic, so please don’t start an msg rant here. But it does reinforce the notion that we should be educated consumers. Msg is created during the process to create hydrolyzed protein. It is my understanding that the resulting substance can contain as much as 20% msg. But since msg is “generally recognized as safe” by the fda, and because the ultimate amount of msg contained in the finished product is proportionately small when related to the finished product, msg is not required to be specifically included in the ingredients list. We unknowingly eat small quantities of msg.

........is it true that trans fat never leaves your body once you eat it?

if transfats never exit the body, we'd all weigh . . . . well, alot.

the recommended daily intake of fats is on the order of 60 grams - that's 48 pounds of fats per year.
the amount/percentage of 'permissible/recommended' transfats content vs saturated, poly/mono-unsaturated, etc. is undefined.

there are 454 grams in a pound.

considering the widespread usage of transfats in the USA food chain - pick a percentage of 48 pounds per year to "permanently gain"

after 20-30 years the math says we all weigh (normal body weight) + (x times 100 pounds of 'retained' transfats)

Trans fats are the worst substances we can willingly ingest. On the other side, there are fats that are not unhealthy for us. The fattest thing I've seen were some fried sausages with oil dripping out of them.
---
Don't kill the ozone layer, choose a deodorant no propylene glycol aluminum.